德国民事送达改革研究——写在德国《民事送达改革法》颁行十年之际

本文立足于我国目前法庭实践中的"送达难"现象,通过对德国民事送达制度理论的剖析,全面介绍德国的民事送达改革,梳理德国民事诉讼法上法院职权送达为主、当事人送达为辅的双轨制送达模式,分析其背后的诉讼理念,介绍其制度铺设的立法细节。德国送达改革重申法院职权送达的核心地位,通过确立补充送迭的各种渠道加大法院职权送达的可操作性,提高送达率,平衡提高诉讼效率与维护当事人程序权利之间两种程序价值之间的紧张。通过透视德国民事送达改革的成果与失误,以期为我国当下的送达制度改革提供"他山之石"。     

德国民事诉讼法的历史嬗变

大陆法系国家的民事诉讼法或多或少都受到过德国民事诉讼法影响,统一的德国《民事诉讼法》制订于1877年,至今仍在适用;然而,德国民事诉讼法自身的形成经历了漫长的过程,在制定以后也进行了多次修改。按照时间的顺序梳理德国民事诉讼法的历史渊源和法律继受,可以从它发展演变和不断改革的过程中发现德国民事诉讼法具有旺盛生命力和蓬勃生机的原因,可对我国的民事诉讼法修订有所启发。     

中国与德国民事司法的比较分析

与德国相比，中国的民事司法在裁判质量、审判效率以及程序公正等方面都有一定差距。德国的民事诉讼法自从2002年1月1日改革以来，不断推陈出新，日新月异。而我国的民事诉讼法律规范在制订与革新方面则显得过于谨慎与犹豫，2007年10月《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》的最新修订也仅仅囿于改革审判监督和执行程序的范围。无论从法官总数的设定、法官独立原则在实践中的贯彻，还是从法院执行官和司法辅助人员的配置，乃至简易程序、督促程序、和解与调解等制度的完善与改进等方面看，德国的民事诉讼法都能在一定程度上为我国的诉讼制度改革提供思路。     

论德国的起诉前强制调解制度

2 0 0 0年 1月 1日 ,《德国民事诉讼法施行法》第 1 5a条生效。它突破了以往德国民事诉讼制度改革的模式 ,规定三类民事争议在法院受理之前必须经过调解 ,从而扩大了法院内替代性纠纷解决程序的适用范围 ,同时促进了人们改变以往主要依靠诉讼解决民事争议的习惯 ,减轻了法院负担。     

民事诉讼审前准备程序研究

目前我国各地人民法院都在进行民事审判方式改革,开庭审理阶段无疑是民事诉讼程序中最重要的阶段,也是民事审判方式改革的重点,然而,开庭审理程序的成功进行是以细致完备的审前准备程序为前提的,本文拟对英国、美国、法国和德国等国家的审前准备程序作一比较研究,并对重构我国的审前准备程序作出设想,希望能对我国民事审判方式改革有所裨益。     

浅析比较法视野下理性构建我国小额诉讼制度——基于美、德两国的考察

构建小额诉讼是当今各国民事简易程序改革的共同趋势。美、德两国分别选择了独立构建、不突破简易程序框架的立法模式。本文指出相似的制度背景使德国模式对我国而言更具借鉴意义,我国的民事简易程序改革应先立足于完善现有的速裁机制,待独创小额诉讼的时机成熟之时再进行程序再造。     

应确立“同级抗诉、同级再审”的民事检察监督原则

民事诉讼法修改后所涉及的一个重要问题就是改革与完善民事抗诉制度。一、改革民事抗诉制度的必要性。民事诉讼法第一百八十五条规定,最高人民检察院对各级人民法院已经发生法律效力的     

论民事再审程序的改革

近年来，全国各地法院对民事再审程序进行了一系列的改革，取得了显着的成效。但是，由于改革没有系统性，又缺乏组织协调，导致了诸多问题的出现。本文通过论述民事再审程序改革的必要性，分析改革中存在的问题，以提高认识；探索民事再审程序改革的目标模式，以明确改革的方向；提出改革民事再审程序的具体设想，为建立公平、公正、高效的民事再审程序提供参考。     

民事二审审判方式改革若干问题探讨

民事二审审判方式改革若干问题探讨陈福民民事审判方式改革是健全和完善具有中国特色社会主义审判制度的一项重要内容，民事二审审判方式改革是整个民事审判方式改革中不可缺少的重要一环，对于加强民事一、二审审判方式之间的衔接和配套，巩固民事一审审判方式改革的成果...     

德国、法国与我国民事诉讼处分辩论原则之比较

本文着眼于德国、法国民事诉讼法与我国民事诉讼法在职权主义上的某种渊源性 ,分别对它们之间的处分原则、辩论原则的内容及改革进行了介绍 ,并作制度和背景上的比较 ,力图以德、法处分原则、辩论原则的精要弥补我国处分、辩论原则的不完善之处。     

我国群体诉讼的立法与司法实践

我国大多数群体纠纷被法院分案受理,既有制度本身的问题,又与司法实践中存在着影响法院积极适用代表人诉讼的诸多因素和司法政策有关。由于群体纠纷本身就需要根据案件的具体情况,采取多元化的方式处理,所以,法院通过其他一些诉讼形式解决群体纠纷是无可非议的。但是,在多元化群体纠纷解决机制中,代表人诉讼制度是必不可少的,其独特的价值和功能是不可能被现在各地法院所尝试的其他替代性诉讼方式所完全取代的。     

民事诉讼中法院的法律观点指出义务:法理、规则与判例——以德国民事诉讼为中心的考察

大陆法系各国的民事诉讼将法院对法律适用的释明称为法律观点指出义务,其与对事实的释明一道构成法院"实体性诉讼指挥"的核心。在德国,法律观点指出义务的立法化是落实宪法规定的听审请求权,避免突袭性裁判的需要。它要求在诉讼过程中,法院应就法律适用与当事人进行讨论,指出当事人在辩论中未提出的,而法院可能作为裁判基础的法律观点,并赋予当事人表明意见的机会。违反法律观点指出义务构成程序瑕疵,当事人可通过上诉、提起宪法诉讼以及提出异议等救济手段维护其程序权利。法律观点指出义务为当事人提供了对法院的法律判断权施加影响的机会,保障了当事人在法律适用领域中的程序参与权,值得我国借鉴。     

环境法侵害排除和排除危害制度--从美、日、德相关诉讼制度的视角

美、日、德法院可以依据环境法适用侵害排除和排除危害责任。该适用大概分为两个阶段,即法律对危害事实存在的不合法性判断,以及法院对环境危害的不合理性判断。但我国环境法在侵害排除和排除危害制度方面存在缺失和不足,为完善我国侵害排除和排除危害制度,污染防治法应确认受害者、检察机关和环保公益性组织的排除危害请求权。     

论我国消费者权益诉讼机制的建立

目前，从实体法方面来说，我国已经初步形成了消费者权益保护体系，然而在程序法构建上却相对滞后。在现代型诉讼的视角下，美国、德国和我国台湾地区的这一领域的经验都有值得借鉴之处。我国的代表人诉讼制度应用于消费者权益诉讼领域存在一些有待改进的问题。在改进这一现行制度的基础上建立消费者小额诉讼和团体诉讼制度，应该作为构建我国消费者权益诉讼机制的重要内容。     

我国商事诉讼制度的解析与重构

基于民商实体法之间的显著差异,导致商事诉讼在许多方面均区别于民事诉讼。无论是否设有独立的商事法院,商事诉讼仍以不同的形式在各国得以存在。重构我国的商事诉讼制度,应以既有的民事诉讼制度为基础,同时建立若干适应商法特性的特别诉讼制度来实现商法的功能。     

论德国行政诉讼中司法权的边界

德国行政诉讼中法院的受案范围几乎不受限制。行政法院对行政案件有完全的管辖权,可以主动、全面、深入地审查事实问题与法律问题,一般无须尊重行政机关在事实判断方面的专业知识与经验。不过,自上个世纪70年代以来,由于行政判断余地等理论的发展,行政法院对行政主体进行强势监督与制约的格局有所松动。另外,行政法院在判决与执行中恪守权力分立原则。德国行政诉讼中这一权力边界格局的形成,是与其宪政体制、法院分工、法定法官原则、二战后对公民权利的重视以及发达的公法理论等紧密相关的。     

ISSUES AND MISCONCEPTIONS IN PRISONER LITIGATION: A CRITICAL VIEW*

In the past quarter-century, the number of suits filed by prisoners in federal courts has substantially increased. Critics have borrowed metaphors from ballistics or pathologv to describe this increase as an “epidemic” of “legal pollution” or an “explosion.” The causes of this “hyperlexis,” or excessive litigation, are often attributed to prisoners' attempts to retry their cases once they have lost, or to some psychological attribute of plaintiffs who view litigation as a means of striking back at their keepers. This paper examines several common conceptions of prisoner litigation. National ling data from federal district courts are used to assess the merits of each. The data provide little support for many of the conceptions of and explanations for prisoner suits. It is suggested that prisoners' use of courts may be a form of social resistance to conditions for which there is no other legitimate avenue for relief:     

Decreeing organizational change: judicial supervision of public institutions.

In the last fifteen years or so, courts have issued a small but significant number of decrees requiring that governmental bodies reorganize themselves so that their behavior will comport with certain legal standards. Such decrees, addressed to school systems, prison and mental hospital officials, welfare administrators, and public housing authorities, insert trial courts in the ongoing business of public administration. In this article, Professor Horowitz traces the origins, characteristics, and consequences of organizational change decrees. He finds their roots in an unusually fluid and indeterminate system of procedural forms and legal rules, a system hospitable to the impact of changing ideas about the performance of bureaucracy and the role of courts. He explores the problematic character of organizational change litigation, underscoring the ways in which organizational behaviour is fraught with a variety of informal relationships beyond the contemplation of the courts. In Professor Horowitz 's judgment, efforts to augment the capacity of courts to cope more effectively with organizational change litigation may redound to the disadvantage of the judicial process by emphasizing the new managerial role of the courts at the expense of their traditional moral function. He concludes by suggesting that capricious budgetary ramifications, unintended consequences, and the impact of unconventional enforcement practices on the courts themselves be included among the elements of a full evaluation of organizational change litigation.     

Business Litigation in the Transition: A Portrait of Debt Collection in Russia

Russian firms are drowning in debt. Managers are increasingly turning to the courts for help. Drawing on a database of 100 non-payments cases decided by three courts in 2000, the article explores the parameters of this litigation and the motivations for filing lawsuits. The analysis shows that the docket is dominated by small-scale disputes between trading partners with short shared histories, suggesting that those who have long-term, trust-based relationships avoid the courts. Along with fear of disrupting ongoing relationships, the disinclination to use the courts is also motivated by a reluctance to open up transactions to state scrutiny. By contrast, the petty disputes that are brought to court tend to be simple and, therefore, managers are willing to risk exposure to the state. Indeed, in a world in which firms manipulate their financial records to create the impression of no income in order to avoid taxes (often putting bogus debts on the books), some of these managers bring cases even when there is little chance of recovering the debt because the decision provides convincing evidence to the tax authorities that the debt is bona fide.     

Patent trolls in China: Some empirical data

Prior research found that the Chinese patent system is more pro-patentee than once believed. Patent owners performed much better in both infringement lawsuits and post-grant validity reviews in China than in many other countries, such as the United States and Germany. Also, after a finding of infringement, Chinese courts were quite lenient with regard to permanent injunctions. All these pro-patentee tendencies, together with the rapid growth of China's software industry, cast doubt on the prevalence of troll activities in China. This article analyzes 3435 patent infringement lawsuits decided by local people's courts in China in 2015 and 2016 and provides some valuable insights into two important questions: how often do patent trolls litigate in China, and do they adopt different litigation tactics from practicing entities? Based on empirical data, this article finds that, interestingly, both the number and the size of patent trolls in China are relatively small. Although nearly half (1534, or 44.7%) of all patent infringement lawsuits were initiated by non-practicing entities (NPEs), individual inventors, instead of professional businesses, accounted for an overwhelming majority of all NPE cases (1528, or 99.6%). Patent assertion entities (PAEs), by contrast, only initiated four out of 3435 cases (0.1%) in the two-year period under review. If only patents in the computer industry are taken into consideration, then PAEs initiated zero computer-related lawsuits. Nonetheless, this article does observe some trollish litigation tactics worthy of attention and further research. There were 47 repeat litigants – litigants who initiated 10 or more cases; some performed “commercial enforcement,” asserting patents against multiple small retailers instead of against one large manufacturer; and patent owners, on average, waited for a rather long time before enforcing their patents in China. All these behaviors may introduce bias to the incentives to innovate and put pressure on the overall functioning of the Chinese patent system.